The grassroots effort attempting to repeal the bill passed by the Democratic-controlled legislature and signed into law by Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper is known as Save our Shotguns. The group is trying to put a measure on the 2014 ballot that would let voters decide whether to undo House Bill 1224.

The group released a poll conducted May 16 through 21 that shows Colorado voters favor repeal 52 percent to 44 percent, with 4 percent undecided. The study was conducted by NSON Opinion Strategy.

“Despite what some, including the Colorado legislature and Gov. Hickenlooper would have us believe, the Second Amendment is crystal clear,” Johnson said, in a news release.

“Placing an arbitrary limit on the capacity of a gun magazine is an unacceptable restriction on the rights of gun owners, manufacturers and sellers, and I am anxious to help give voters an opportunity to restore those rights. … Restricting the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens does not make anyone safer. Rather, it simply empowers those who have no regard for the law and who wish to do us harm.”

“Placing an arbitrary limit on the capacity of a gun magazine is an unacceptable restriction on the rights of gun owners, manufacturers and sellers”
Really?
What about machine guns and the NFA?
Why can’t I own a MANPAD?
How come I can’t own a working tank?
How is a magazine limit different from any of these other restrictions that gun nuts have accepted?

John

Because the 2nd amendment’s supporting documents clearly indicate that the average american should be as well armed, with as much as the average infantryman can carry. That clearly doesn’t mean nukes or any other straw man argument that you can conjure up, to deny citizens their constitutional right to self defense in a manner that they choose for themselves.

jmpmk2

That’s not a strawman argument, but an extrapolation, which is perfectly reasonable an any context. Just because you don’t a reasonable argument to make, that doesn’t make everyone else’s argument invalid.

milehisnk

It absolutely is a strawman argument. hey misrepresent the argument. “You are against magazine limits? Then why aren’t you against machine gun bans, tanks, ad nauseum.?!” That’s a primo example of a strawman.

sdff

No, it is a straw man argument. Crew served weapons are not arms, they are ordinance.

Dstegesaurus_5000

Where does it say “infantryman” in the second amendment? Sounds like something you added to support your argument.

Volne

Actually, in the Supreme Court ruling identifying well regulated militia and previous US SC ruling, it was addressed and explained that the people were to be capable of maintaining the same general weaponry as the surrounding standing army. Which at the time was a flint lock but explained that as time and improvements were made, the people would also not be restricted from ownership of general infantry weaponry for defense of the nation and from the nation.

Dstegesaurus_5000

So do you think we need unlimited access to hand grenades without background checks? They are issued to infantrymen…

milehisnk

Strawman argument. What does hand grenades have to do with rifles? If you want to get technical, people consider a grenade or other explosive to be munitions, not arms.

they get grenades we get grenades, flintlock to flintlock, 30 round mag to 30 round mag. This is not about want, hobby or home protection this is about keeping our nation free for its people not its government.

elkwc

There is background checks for the purchase of most firearms. Go buy one and find out. Buy one online and find out. I have bought 4 in the last year. One was a long rifle. One from an indidual and another from an estate. Background checks were performed on all 4. The true fact is around 12-15% of sales are done without background checks. Most of these are cases where guns are passed down in families or sales/trades between good friends. The 40% number those for gun bans like to state is not only outdated but also includes guns obtained illegally( theft, sales between felons,ect). The illegal transactions will continue. No gun bill will stop a criminal from obtaining one either through theft or by other illegal means.

milehisnk

Right next to where it says that the government can “reasonably restrict” the right of people to bear arms.

Dstegesaurus_5000

Careful, you better stretch before twisting yourself into that pretzel…

you fools who voted thumbs down on this comment need to read the 2nd amendment. 1 simple sentence, I know its a lot to ask but hey pack a lunch and get it done. Read the rest of the amendments while you are at it.

flyfysher

I’d be interested in learning exactly what un-named documents you reference in support of your assertion that “the 2nd Amendment’s supporting documents clearly indicate the average American should be as well armed, with as much as the average infantryman can carry.’

1. Did multiple round magazines exist tat the time the Second Amendment was drafted?

2. Do you support the public’s right to own fully automatic military assault rifles then? If so, for what purpose? Defense? If so, then against who?

Bill Agans

it’s stated in the 2nd amendment that not only do we have the right to bear arms against a tyrannical government, but it shall NOT be infringed. right now, we’re livin’ in a police state. our government has become corrupt & tyrannical. not only is it our right to bear arms against it, it’s also our duty to abolish a tyrannical government when it becomes this corrupt. it’s all stated in plain english in the constitution.

milehisnk

Actually, we haven’t accepted those.
We can own machine guns, and a large number of us want to repeal the NFA as well as the 1986 Hughes Amendment.
You can own a working tank. Good luck finding munitions though.

D+ for effort though, since you tried to use a realistic topic but just parroted the same old BS.

Dingoboy242

Please read Heller before trotting out the same tired argument the Supreme Court quite clearly rejected in that case.

You can own a working tank. It will cost you a fortune and you will need special licenses for the ammo let alone finding a range that will let you shoot it.

For the rest of us, hyperbole much?

Miller, Heller and McDonald all deal with firearms in common use for lawful purposes at the time. Magazines holding up to 30 rounds for rifles and 20 rounds for handguns are very common, many handguns come with OEM magazines holding these amounts and they are clearly protected by the 2A.

Machine guns, short barreled shotguns, etc. were deemed not common by SCOTUS and that is why NFA of 1934 has not been over turned.

Furthermore, not allowing the transfer of lawfully owned magazines, grandfathered by the ban, to family members without compensation from the government which banned such transfer, is a violation of 14th Amendment Rights.

This magazine ban was horribly written. It is unConstitutional and unless you need a picture book to understand, it is very unenforceable as nearly every magazine out there has no markings designating date manufactured or a serial number. I have metal OEM magazines that came with my Bushmaster AR-15 that I purchased 20 years ago that are identical to mags still being produced today and since I tend to use the same mags over and over, many of my 20 year old mags show zero wear and tear.

It was a bad bill, driven by out of state interests that had zero bipartisan support and in fact had bipartisan opposition and no rank and file law enforcement support.

It’s only a matter of time before it is overturned or repealed.

Jrod

davebarnes Calling them “gun nuts” devalues your argument and triggers defensiveness. This is a tactic that too many people use when discussing topics. I.e. Libtard, commie liberal, gun clinger/nut, teabagger and on and on.

milehisnk

Generally speaking though, I wear it as a badge of honor when I get called a gun nut, teabagger, ad nauseum. It means I won the argument.

Jrod

Awesome. Point!

Just a pet peeve of mine.

Willard M

Wahoo! A (former) New Mexico governor! What ‘grassroots’ Colorado leadership! (Probably paid for by a DC-based lobbyist group like the NRA).

Hey Willard? Nice try….but you failed.
The NRA is no fan of Gary Johnson.
Here is what they posted (insulted) on their FB page last November:

“Yes, vote for a guy who dropped out of the Republican primary before
the first caucus or primary after barely registering a blip in the
polls. Gary Johnson is not going to win in November; he is not going to
be president in January. You may not like your choices in Romney and
Obama but those are your choices. If Obama is reelected, the Second
Amendment will be in serious peril as he will not have to face the
voters ever again.”

milehisnk

Like Bloomberg’s MAIG paying off Colorado state legislators? Or like a non-Coloradoan as governor doing the bidding of D.C. based lobbyists like Obama and Biden? Or Giffords?

NeonBlaqk

Eh, go back to New Mexico and keep your nose out of our state. Only Coloradans should have a voice in Colorado state politics.

JAWS

You mean like Mark and Gabby coming here and running their mouths. What about the $3.4 Million that Bloomberg ‘donated’ to the anti-gun measures. Or is that somehow different? Please explain this one – it should be a riot

Herb

Ummmm, Kinda like how Chickenpooper is from Pennsylvania, yet he came to OUR state and mucked it up with these gun laws and his delay of Nathan Dunlaps execution? How did that asshat become our governor when he is not from our state?

milehisnk

Kind of like how Biden and Bloomberg paid off/threatened Colorado politicians to ignore the will of their constituents to pass this BS legislation in the first place?

DandRsuck

Looks like the libtard shut up real quick when someone informed them of the money pushed in by out of state people to influence Colorado for the worse.

Yeah kind of like the arbitrary blood alcohol limits we set for DUI laws. Government is clearly out of control when it forces us to use our combat guns designed for killing as many people as possible with as little effort as possible with limits on magazine capacities…the nerve!

Goinwheelin

Not a very good analogy. Owning or driving a vehicle isn’t a constitutional right, but if you want to go there car accidents kill roughly the same amount of people each year as guns but you don’t need a background check to buy a vehicle in fact you don’t even have to be a US citizen. Hmmm

milehisnk

Actually, if you remove suicides from the equasion (because, as has been proven in other countries, removing guns doesn’t reduce suicide rates, it just changes how they do it), then cars kill 3x as many people as guns do with murders and accidents combined. If you count only auto accidents and gun accidents, it’s closer to 20 times as many.

Zapatasghost

Where do you get your stats? Look up what the Centers for Disease Control says about the # of gun deaths. Then look up the overall # of gun deaths. Yes gun deaths go down (including suicide) when you enact tougher gun restrictions.

Ignorance is bliss. It’s funny that you call sporting rifles “combat guns designed for killing as many people as possible” though. Perhaps you should undergo psychiatric evaluation and possibly have your constitutional rights rescinded because I’m not sure you are mentally stable enough to bear arms…or vote.

Zapatasghost

“Sporting rifles”….right. How many rounds do you need in the magazine in a semi-automatic combat weapon to sport hunt? Or is that beside the point? Tell that to the parents of those 1st graders at Sandy Hook or the family members of the cops killed by all of those legally obtained “sporting rifles.”

Zapatasghost

that won’t get properly investigated by federal authorities because they have been defunded and hogtied with the help of the NRA lobby…The ATF doesn’t have a director. Law enforcement can’t properly track guns that have been used in criminal activity because federal law doesn’t allow it. Kind of a loose interpretation of the 2nd amendment don’t you think?? Interesting that constitution fundamentalists are so willing to read so deep into that one sentence: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

milehisnk

What would tracking guns already used in a crime and recovered do?

Oh, and it’s ironic that you talk about “reading so deep into that one sentence”, yet it’s your side, not mine, who takes every measure to reinterpret the painfully obvious meaning of that simple sentence, rather than take it at face value.

milehisnk

So, in other words, tell it to nobody, because it doesn’t fit your demented definitions.

If you had any clue, you wouldn’t have said what you did, because it’s making all the people like me laugh at you, and you would understand why. Your nomenclature is hysterical on so many levels…It’s impossible to take you seriously.

elkwc

My son passed away in a vehicle accident. If I used your logic I would get the Liberals to pass a bill that would limit the top speed at 30 mph to lessen the severity of accidents and it would also reduce the numbers. How fast do you really need to travel? Is saving a live only important when a gun is being used. But not when it comes to vehicle accidents or non health threatening abortions?

Bill Agans

ur actually wrong about that. he mainly used hand guns in those killings. not “assault” rifles.

Volne

If you actually review the stats, more people are killed with knives, fires, or blunt force objects than are killed by guns each year.
If we take your argument at face value, then no one should own cars, cook their food, or be able to buy a pressure cooker since they are obviously only used to make bombs. Oh wait, shouldn’t we also ban all cleaning chemicals since they can be combined and made into poison, which kills huindreds of people every year on accident.
You might want to double check your figures and actually identify what weapons are used more often. Unfortunately, you continue to make a baseless argument that is factually inaccurate.

A group called “Save our Shotguns” is fighting to overturn the 15 round limit? Exactly what kind of shotguns are they using that they need more than 15 rounds? Maybe they should work more on their aim and less on their politics…

Volne

Maybe their politics and their aim are both on target.
I know many disabled veterans who would have serious problems defending themselves because of this law. One is missing his left arm, and would not be able to reload a smaller capacity magazine quickly enough to defend himself should the situation arrise.
Maybe you just like being a lamb led to slaughter, but some of us prefer to go down fighting.

Dstegesaurus_5000

You’re disabled buddy “needs” more than 15 shotgun shells loaded at a time? If he only has one arm he probably shouldn’t be using a shotgun anyway…

Jrod

Maybe he is defending himself with something other than a shotgun. Just because the group involved with this effort is named save our shotguns, doesn’t mean the laws only apply to shotguns or that only shotguns can be used in self defense. Volne did not say his buddy used a shotgun. In fact, no specifics on the weapon of choice were expressed. Reading comprehension is your friend when communicating online. Try it!

Dstegesaurus_5000

Hi Jrod thanks for joining the conversation late. Just to help you catch up, I have been posting about shotguns, and Volne wrote back that his disabled friend needs more than 15 rounds to defend himself. If Volne wanted to change the subject to something other than shotguns, then he is perfectly capable of expressing himself without your help. Until he says otherwise, I will have to assume he is responding to my post about shotguns…

milehisnk

So where in that document does it say anything about “need”?

Dstegesaurus_5000

What document?

Guest

Um…. errr… the Bill of Rights?

Volne

It doesn’t have to be a shotgun. The law limiting magazine capacity extends to all firearms in the state. Not to mention the way the law is written, it effectively outlaws any magazine designed to be cleaned and maintained so accidents don’t occur. I think you have a very limited knowledge of firearms and their use and applications.
I have a very simple question. If I limit the capacity of my firearm, is the criminal breaking into my house going to limit his?
I didn’t think so.
I have to limit my capacity for defense but there is no limiting the criminals/politicians from doing harm to me just because they want to take what I have.
That is the entire premise behind the 2nd amendment. It gives the population of the country the ability to keep others and the government from over reaching and taking what they did not earn and giving it to those it decides to give it to.
The English Monarchy did the same thing, and that’s the reason we fought for our own freedoms. England felt that whatever was made by people was the property of the king(government), and it had the right to redistribute it any way it/he liked. You might want to actually read your history and understand the reasoning behind the rights we set forth at the beginning. We did that because we knew that eventually there would be those who wanted to again take control away from the citizen and centralize it into a ruling class which we have come very close to creating.

Dstegesaurus_5000

Finally, we can get back to my original question: Why call the group “Save our Shotguns” if they aren’t fighting to save the shotguns? They seem primarily concerned with handguns and assault rifles, so call it what it is…

Dan Mac

Dstegesaurus 5000,
Why does Bloomberg call his group Mayor’s Against “ILLEGAL” Guns? What are “illegal” guns anyway? Are they the same as “illegal” cars, knives, or baseball bats? Is there any such thing as an “illegal” gun? Car? Knife? NO! Inanimate objects are not “illegal”, they are simply used “illegally”.
So why the name?
“Save our Shotguns” will be one of many groups that will emerge to repeal the useless “gun control” laws.

Guest

Shouldn’t that be HIS choice under the 2nd Amendment and NOT yours?

Rynosaurus

If you limit people’s capacity, you are giving criminals knowledge on how to prepare. They now know that, if the capacity limit is 10, to bring 11 or more people, and they will succeed. So, your capacity limits do nothing more than arm the criminals with knowledge, and limit people’s ability to defend themselves.

I think the Mayors (as in MAIG) should work more on running their cities effectively and efficiently rather than telling lawful gun owners what they “need” and don’t need.

Goinwheelin

Read the federalist papers folks. Being “well regulated” refers to being properly equipped, as in weaponry and ammunition in common use at that time by infantrymen

larsen00

Sounds like the initial steps for his 2016 presidential campaign.

nellibly

“Despite what some, including the Colorado legislature and Gov. Hickenlooper would have us believe, the Second Amendment is crystal clear,” Johnson said, in a news release.

So was Heller v. District of Columbia. In that U.S. Supreme Court decision the conservative majority upheld the right of people to own guns, but in a majority opinion written by the “liberal activist judge,” Antonia Scalia stated that “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.”

On other words, background checks and limits on the types of weapons individuals can own can be imposed by the government. So unless the current conservative majority reverses itself, this lawsuit will likely do little more except add billable hours to the law firm’s bottom line.

Given the precedent Heller was going to set and knowing much of it was based on the concept around firearms in common use at the time, Scalia was quite likely trying to stave off attempts to overturn the NFA of 1934 which strictly limits machine gun ownership.

He went specific about concealed carry. Why not specify magazine size and / or semi auto rifles if they felt these are not Constitutionally protected? Probably because they are. Magazines holding up to 30 rounds have been in common use for many years. Their unlawful use in crime is quite rare, particularly given the number in circulation.

It’s a bad bill, poorly written, unenforceable and it won’t stay on the books.

The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and
property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be
called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify
the practice of carrying concealed weapons.

Just so you folks know what you are arguing about

Guest

Actually the part about the ability to carry concealed weapons has been amended.

Steve

Gary, head on back to New Mexio, and don’t give up your retirement gig!

James Wagner

Glad Gary is with us, we need every thing we can to defeat this communist legislature before it completely restricts most of our rights and freedoms and taxes us into non existence

Wow, an honest poll, unlike the Denver Post, ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, and CNN. Must really tee off all you flaming liberal PC’ers.

johndubose

Something everyone should know about the Libertarian Party.
Big money does NOT go to it. That is because the people who donate big money to political causes expect a return if their side wins. Sometimes these guys even give to both Democrats and Republicans hoping to profit either way. With no real chance to win, minor parties just do not get big contributions.

Steven B.

So, will this guy mail ricin to Hick if he doesn’t get his way that what happen in N.Y.?!?!?!

A ban on abortions, unless in the case of rape or incest or risk of death of the mother, seems reasonable to me.

How about we limit you to just a few flies – good luck.

Noxious1

False Equivalency.

SPQR9

Not really.

SPQR9

For no rational reason. There is nothing magical about the sixteenth bullet. It does not contain properties not contained by the other fifteen.

It was solely a law intended to put a thumb in the eye of the gun owning public – that the extremist wing of the Democrats consider their enemies.

Rick

I’m liking Gary more and more. Very proud to have voted for him in 2012.

Guest

What is to be proud of? Your vote and a few million others is why Obama is still president.

galtspeaks

I wouldn’t have voted for Romney anyway. If there was a gun to my head and I had to choose between only a demopublican and a republicrat, I would have voted for the bullet in the head! Libertarians are not conservatives and the assumption that I would have voted for one statist over another is incorrect.

Questionlol

Romney and Obama are both terrible choices. Continuing to support the current duopoly in our political system is the real wasted vote.

Flavio Rael

I am amazed how even Democrats look at these as being dumb laws written by some really DUMB people! No to keep the government off our legal guns just like they need to stay out of our bedroom, right Libs?? Our is these where the but but comes out. Hypocrites!!

Lyvnxxl

When he is successful in completing his mission in Colorado, I hope he will come to California and repeal our Unconstitutional laws and restrictions of the gun laws here.

Restricting the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens does not make anyone safer. Rather, it simply empowers those who have no regard for the law and who wish to do us harm – right on, Gary!

Topher

Please come to MA next

Noxious1

Fifteen bullets isn’t enough?

If you can’t hit the target with fifteen bullets, you need to go back to the gun range and practice more. A lot more. Seriously.

SPQR9

The idea that the sixteenth bullet is more dangerous than the first 15 is irrational. There really is no rational basis for the legislation at all, and its bizarre vague language is utterly unenforcable.

Joey Bunch has been a reporter for 28 years, including the last 12 at The Denver Post. For various newspapers he has covered the environment, water issues, politics, civil rights, sports and the casino industry.